According to GMT Game ads, Silver Bayonetis an operational game that features, “innovative combat resolution, integrating maneuver combat, close assault, artillery bombardment, gunship rocket and air support into one easy to use system.” All that certainly sounds like alot. So just how does it work?

Courtesy GMT Games

To explore this question and learn the game I followed the advice in the Standard Scenarios portion of the Rule Book. The part I focused in on was this passage:

The scenarios are numbered in chronological order. To play them in an order that gradually adds size and/or complexity, use the following order: 6a, 6b, 3, 5, 4, 1, 2, 7. These scenarios all use the Standard Sequence of Play.

Scenarios 3, 4, 5, 6a & 6b are intended to be played directly on the scenario cards provided.

In general, Standard Scenarios do not use Helicopters, Patrols, Observation, Ambush, or Hidden Movement, although they may use a form of these concepts (Rule Book, p. 29)

The “innovative combat resolution” system is the heart of the game design and models the interaction of Bombardment, Maneuver Combat, and Assault Combat. Although I had exposure to this system in Operation Shoestring I did not fully understand how it works until the far easier to understand rules and player aids in Silver Bayonettaught me.

Maneuver & Assault Combat

Courtesy GMT Games

In a typical turn, following the placement of reinforcements and movement the active player must declare his combats. This phase involves more than just pointing to a stack of units. The type of combat (Maneuver or Assault) must be declared. Maneuver Combat can be thought of in terms of levering a unit out of a position. In game terms the possible combat results are fatigue, retreat, step loss, and elimination. Assault Combat is in many ways a frontal assault; possible combat results are step losses and elimination. Both combats use a different CRT. Maneuver Combat uses an odds-based CRT with the attacker resolving the combat with a single die roll. Assault Combat rolls on a different CRT using straight combat strength with defender, then attacker, both getting rolls.

Bombardment

In Silver Bayonet, Bombardment is performed by artillery, some helicopters, and abstracted air points (air support). Bombardment can happen at three different points in a turn. Regardless of the firing platform, or when in the turn the bombardment happens, all use the same Bombardment/Support Table. While the table is the same the results are interpreted differently depending on the type (Offensive, Defensive, or Maneuver Support). This is a very interesting model of how artillery and air support work in combat. Although at first glance one might think that resolving bombardment at three different points in the turn is cumbersome, the use of a single table with common DRMs but different interpretation of results actually makes resolution quick and (mostly) painless.

Efficiency Rating

Rule 2.4.5 defines Efficiency Rating as:

The efficiency rating (ER) of each unit represents that unit’s level of training, effectiveness, and cohesion. The higher the ER, the better.

ER is used at several points in a turn, most importantly during Combat Refusal, Attack Coordination, and Maneuver Combat. ER is what makes units really distinguishable; a Attack Strength 3 units with an ER of 5 is a much different animal than Attack Strength 3 with and ER of 3.

Hidden Movement

Hidden Movement is actually a Campaign Scenario rule and admittedly much harder for me to fully explore as I am learning the game by playing against my evil twin, “Mr. Solo.”

Creating a Battle Narrative

The combination of the Bombardment-Maneuver-Assault and Efficiency Rating mechanics creates a “battle narrative” that feels thematically correct. It is possible in Silver Bayonetfor that 100-man US infantry company to hold off that NVA regiment given enough artillery and air support. It is equally possible for the NVA or PAVN to ambush the US or ARVN and then fade away into the jungle. For a great example of a how Silver Bayonetbuilds a “battle narrative” look at the original COIN game designer Volko Ruhnke’s (@Volko26) Operation Silver Bayonet (Part 1) AAR on the InsideGMT Blog.

The more I play Silver Bayonetthe more the game is growing on me. I am pretty sure I am going to place this game in my personal Top 10 wargames. In this case, the innovative mechanics just “fit” the campaign and make the game come alive for me like few cardboard simulations have before.

In 2015, when designer Gene Billingsley went to update Silver Bayonet, he wrote in the Inside GMT Blog:

A recommended book. The “We Were Soldiers Once and Young” book came out in late 1992, and the movie a decade later, and Americans began to learn about the bitter struggle of Hal Moore’s troopers in the shadow of the Chu Pong at LZ X-Ray. But even now, little has been written on the broader campaign in October and November of 1965, a campaign that stopped, attritted, and later routed a tough North Vietnamese Division poised to overrun the Special Forces camps and meager fortifications around Pleiku in just over a month of campaigning. Considering that airmobility was mostly “an idea” at that point, and that the unblooded 1st Cavalry troopers that implemented new strategies and tactics were about as familiar with the area of operations as they were the face of the moon, what they achieved was quite remarkable. And, of course, terribly costly. To this day, I know of no better book – if you want to read up on this campaign – that dissects the entire campaign, than J.D. Coleman’s “Pleiku,” a book that was my primary source for constructing the game’s scenarios way back in 1990. To be sure, we have more information today, and some of that will make its way into the updated edition of the game, but this book remains a tremendous resource, written by a gifted writer, with enough precise detail that it almost reads like an after action report (though much more interesting.) If you’re interested in the topic, read (or re-read) this book.

Having both read the book and watched the movie, the game Silver Bayonetis extremely evocative of the topic. This is GMT Games at its finest; a respectful treatment of the subject with little oh-rah and a very fair representation of the capabilities and motivations of both combatants.

Silver Bayonet recreates the pivotal November 1965 battle between a full North Vietnamese Army Division and the US 1st Air Cavalry Division in the Ia Drang Valley. NVA expertise in lure and ambush tactics resulted in significant US casualties. US mobility and the ability to bring massive amounts of firepower to bear quickly virtually destroyed the attacking NVA division and forced a change in NVA tactics.

This re-issue of GMT Games’ 1990 CSR Award winning title that started it all keeps the original operational system, but streamlines to it to include innovative combat resolution integrating maneuver combat, close assault, artillery bombardment, and support from gunships and air sorties.

Increased accessibility to primary and secondary source material has made it possible to make changes to more accurately represent both sides’ unique capabilities without significantly altering or breaking the base game system. The major changes involve patrols, ambushes, landing zones, and the 1st Cav Brigade HQ, while minor changes tweak movement, combat, and coordination game mechanics to showcase radically different strengths and weaknesses the FWA and NVA force brought to the battles in the Ia Drang Valley.

Out of the Box Impressions

The component list for Silver Bayonetgiven on the GMT website does not inspire.

COMPONENTS

1.5 countersheets with 9/16″ counters

22×34 inch mounted map

Two 11×17 inch divider screens

Rules & Play Book

15 Player Aid Cards

One 10-sided die

Silver Bayonetunpacked (courtesy GMT Games)

Opening an actual box is a totally different, and very satisfying, experience. It starts even before you open the box with a famous picture of Lt. Rick Rescorla. [If you don’t recognize the name follow the link or google it; after you are done cleaning the dust out of your eyes you can continue reading here.]

Those “1.5 countersheets” works out to 351 counters with only 14 blanks. The reality is most scenarios use a subset of the counters. Scenario #1 – Breaking the Siege (Duc Co) uses only 31 counters. Nor is the entire nicely mounted map used every game; Scenario #3 – The Drang River Valley (LZ Mary) uses a 5×4 hex subset of the map (and nine counters). The map in the 25th Anniversary Edition is mounted making it look really nice on the table.

The Rules & Play Book is colorful, two column, and only 40 pages. The Standard rules cover 1.0 thru 12.0 and span 16 pages. The Campaign Scenario rules cover 13.0 thru 18.0 and are delivered in 10 pages. The balance is a short reference to the Scenarios, Designer’s Notes, and a very useful Example of Play. I really appreciate the use of color tone boxes throughout the rules; yellow for historical quotes, blue for Design Notes, and brown for Play Notes. The smart use of color certainly helps with deciphering the rules.

The 15 Player Aid Cards include eight for the 11 scenarios, a Standard Sequence of Play, a Campaign Sequence of Play, the Battle Board, two cards (one for each player) for holding units off map or in hiding, and two double-fold combat charts cards. As an added bonus, there are two player screens included. Both are nice but beyond the PAVN player using theirs to hide the Hidden Movement card I am not sure of the usefulness. Seems more like a Kickstarter stretch goal than a needed component. But the art is nice and inspirational so they will definitely stay!

New counters, a new map, a well laid out Rule Book, use of Player Aid cards and tables on the mounted map make this a very visually stunning game. Taken together, the 25th Anniversary Edition of Silver Bayonet is one of the best organized wargames in my collection.

Will to Fight is a 2018 RAND Corporation study undertaken on behalf of the US Army G3/5/7 “to explain the will to fight at the unit level and develop a model designed to support assessment of partner forces and analysis of adversary forces” (iii). Within the report, the authors offer a model of Tactical-Operational Will to Fight. Of particular interest to me, as both a hobbyist and part-time professional wargamer, is the report’s use of commercial wargames. Reading these sorts of studies is always interesting because I get to see how others, often outsiders, view the wargaming hobby. In the case of Will to Fight, the view is definitely mixed with some good for the hobby…and some continued (negative?) stereotyping.

Here is how the authors describe war games (note the use of two words):

War games and simulations are approximations of combat intended to help people think about the nature of war, to help people understand complex military problems without actually fighting, to reduce uncertainty in decision making, and to forecast and analyze notional combat outcomes. War games are played between people, usually across a table, and usually across a flat two-dimensional map. Some war games use three-dimensional terrain and figures to represent soldiers and vehicles. (p. 113)

The study defines simulations as, “computer representations of combat” (p. 113). The footnote to this section makes mention of other types of games, specifically matrix games and card games.

On the positive side, the study makes the point that commercial tabletop games and computer simulations are “generally more effective at representing will to fight, but focus varies” (p. 126). This conclusion is based in great part on a nonrandom sample of 62 commercial products and military games and simulations drawn from a pool of 75 products (p. 126). The study broke this sample into four categories (p. 127-130)

Commercial tabletop games using hexagon maps or model terrain, counters, or figures

Commercial simulation, or computer games from platoon level to the battalion level

US military tabletop games typically using hexagon maps and counters

US military simulation from the squad level to the corps level

As much as I want to commend the authors for taking the time to actually learn about commercial wargames, I also feel they missed an opportunity to experience many great wargames that are out there. By narrowly defining commercial wargames as only “hex map” (hex & counter) or “tabletop” (miniatures) they actually exclude many great games that could help their research. Further, the study group actually reveals a bias against many of these games with comments like this footnote talking about Advanced Squad Leader:

Some commercial game players would argue that rules are always fixed. For example, many hard-core players of the game Advanced Squad Leader would never consider bending a rule to speed game play or to account for an unusual situation. Official military tabletop gaming tends to allow for greater flexibility to account for the messy realities of combat to ensure the purpose of the games not lost at the expense of hidebound conformity (footnote 4, p. 113)

There are other little examples, like the seemingly off-hand comments such as, “Complex commercial tabletop war games like Lock ‘n Load Tactical Modern Core Rules 4.1” (p. 130) that show a belief that commercial tabletop wargames are by nature complex. As an long time grognard, I understand I have a different definition of complexity but have to wonder just how much of the study typing is based on “wall-o-text” reading versus actually playing a game.

Looking a bit closer at the commercial tabletop war games chosen for study shows a mix of old and new games and a variety of designers and publishers. Taking games typed as “Hex map” only from Table 3.5 War Games and Simulations Assessed and Coded (p. 128-129) we find:

This is the point where I am supposed to say that there are better, more representative games out there that could be used for this study. I personally missed my favorite Conflict of Heroes series or Panzer / MBT. I am sure there are many games that could of been used. I can only wonder if this “nonrandom sample” is actually someones game collection (and if it is, it’s a great collection…just not mine!).

All that said, the study reports that commercial games are better than military games at depicting will to fight. The authors define this advantage using a near-formula expression:

Will to fight (not) relevant to combat outcomes + will to fight (not) relevant to victory conditions + game or simulation type – US military simulation

I found it disheartening to read the contention that “none of the military war games or simulations…gave priority to will to fight as the most or even one of the most important factors in war” (p. 133). Indeed, military war games and simulations are, in the words of National Defense analyst Michael Peck in 2003, “firepower-fetish attrition models that award victory to whoever has the biggest guns, rather than giving equal weight to soft factors such as morale, fatigue, and cohesion” (p. 133).

So it looks like military war games need to take their cue from the commercial sector. The strongest accolades are given to a tabletop (miniatures) game, GHQ’s WWII Micro Squad rules:

…GHQ’s WWII Micro Squad, place will to fight at the center of the game. GHQ created a cohesion system that rolls together leadership, morale, and other aspects of will to fight. This meta-cohesion system applies at each tactical fight, and it clearly influences the outcome of the game. WWII Micro Squad and a handful of other tabletop games represent the kind of aggressive adoption of will-to-fight modeling that might help make military simulation more realistic (p. 130)

Wargame designers may benefit from the Will-to-Fight Model (p. xx) presented in this study. It certainly provides a different way of looking at those factors that affect a soldier on the battlefield.

My own reaction to the study is mixed; I like the model but shake my head ruefully at the games selected for study. If nothing else, maybe Will to Fight will give another generation of wargame designers and publishers a chance to assist the military and create a better war fighting force. I can only wonder what designers and publishers like Mark Herman or Uwe Eickert or Volko Ruhnke, or even small start-up companies like Covert Intervention Games think as all in the past or presently support government or military gaming.

My plays this week of Operation Shoestring: The Guadalcanal Campaign, 1942 (GMT Games, 1990) gave me my latest Gropiphany. In replaying the game after many years I discovered a real gem. The back-of-the-box claims in this case correct; an innovative combat resolution mechanic integrated with a naval and air game combined with just the right amount of chrome rules makes for a very thematic and replayable game. Bottom Line – Operation Shoestringmodels the battles in an innovative, and fun playing, fashion providing great insight into the campaign.

Presentation

Operation Shoestringwas published near the beginning of the GMT Games era. The components are not exciting but functional; a paper 22″x34″ map and 600 counters (a bit thin for my taste). The rule book is 24 pages, double column, with few illustrations. The player aid cards are dead simple. The box itself is the GMT standard 2″ deep; which is 1″ more than is needed even with an enclosed die! There is also this LAST MINUTE ERRATA AND NOTE (p. 18) that I find quite humorous and shows that GMT was still learning the ropes of publishing wargames:

You’ll note that we put the Victory Point Track in a really DUMB place. That’s right — on the Japanese Hidden Movement Chart!! So how’s the American ever going to know what the score is? Sorry, this is a definite screw-up, but the cards area already printed, so do this: photocopy or cut the Victory Point Track from the Japanese Hidden Movement Chart and place it where BOTH players can use it!

Playability

At first look, Operation Shoestringappears to be classically daunting hex & counter wargame. The ‘wall-o-text’ rule book and several pages of charts and tables, along with multiple player aids and 600 counters makes the game look complex. The real gem of game design is in how all the game mechanics integrate together into a smooth system that covers two levels of war; an abstracted higher-operational level look at naval & air combat and a lower-operational level treatment of the ground war.

Mechanics

Operation Shoestring is in many ways two games in one. The main game actually is the ground combat on Guadalcanal played at the operational level of war with Company-size units fighting in 1-mile hexes over the course of 3-1/2 day turns. The second (and secondary) game is the Naval-Air game, played only on odd turns (weekly), that simulates the naval and air battles around the island. Operation Shoestring is part of the GMT Operational System which focuses on the interaction of the maneuver, bombardment, and assault combat systems. Units are rated for morale and efficiency which are just as important as formation strength in combat. This is the same system used by Silver Bayonet: The First Team in Vietnam, 1965. As the Designer’s Notes put it:

In order for players to use this combat system to best advantage, they will need to become proficient at utilizing all three types of combat. Knowing when, where, and how to declare combat is the key to doing this. The sequence of play forces the attacking player to make irrevocable combat declarations. Tis roughly simulates headquarters’ final attack orders which commit troops to combat. Manuever combats can force the enemy to retreat, become fatigued, and, depending on the terrain the enemy occupies, possibly lose troops. Assault combat will eliminate units, pure and simple, but can be very costly to the attacker as well. Bombardment combat represents the predatory bombardments which inevitably precede an attack. Ideally, all three types of combat should be brought against a defending hex.

Ground Combat Results Tables

Maneuver and Assault Combat use different Combat Tables. Maneuver Combat is uses a classic combat odds ratio table. Only the Attacker fires. Combat results are expressed in terms of retreat, step-losses, and Fatigue. Assault Combat uses pure combat strength. However, unlike Maneuver Combat, the defender gets to fire first and there is a chance (based on the Efficiency of the involved units) for a second round of combat. Assault Combat results are all expressed as step-losses.

The second game is the Naval & Air game. Naval-Air play happens only on odd-numbered turns in the Strategic Interphase. The naval and air rules are abstracted to a degree, as explained in 18.0 Naval Units:

Although aircraft carriers and battleships were the largest and most fearsome weapons of the day, the Guadalcanal campaign had its share of cruiser battles and submarine attacks as well. Even the lowly DDs and Trasnports contributed mightily to the naval aspects of the campaign. We have chosen to represent all these types, some abstractly, to give players the “feel” for the challenges both sides faced at Guadalcanal. In essence, the “raison d’être” for both navies was to get troops and supplies to Guadalcanal. The essential strategy ws much more than “Let’s go sink the other guy’s ships.” Players who don’t recognize this and play accordingly will soon find themselves with armies that are dying on the vine on Guadalcanal.

The Air/Naval Phase is not played on the map but on separate Player Aid cards. The most important results of the Air/Naval Phase are the naval and air units “bombarding” Guadalcanal; that is, those available to provide bombardment or combat support during the next two Player Turns. Additionally, the number of Transports that make it though determine the supply status of the units on the island.

Naval-Air Player Cards

I usually don’t like supply rules in my wargames, often because it can be an administrative burden that interferes with my enjoyment of the game. In Operation Shoestring, supply is a vital factor like in the historical campaign and to get the historic “feel” of the battles supply rules are needed. Fortunately, in Operation Shoestring the most burdensome aspects of supply are abstracted and the effects of no supply are concentrated on. Basically, during the Air/Naval Phase of the Strategic Interphase, both sides try to get supply to the island. Depending on the volume of supplies delivered, units are either in “Full Supply,” “Low Supply,” or “No Supply.” This supply state affects combat (16.3) and the die roll for Attrition and Disease (16.4).

The “chrome” rules in Operation Shoestring are not burdensome on the game. As with most Pacific War games, there is the obligatory Banzai Charge rule (14.3). The game is designed for hidden movement but can be played without it with little lose in flavor. Another rule that makes for great replayability is the variable Automatic Victory Conditions for longer games. Basically, each player draws a number of chits from his group of 10 Auto Victory Conditions. Depending upon the scenario, if the player achieves X number of the conditions, they win regardless of Victory Point totals!

Historical Flavor

We have found that the naval units are ABSOLUTELY the most important ones in the game. One look at the vicious supply and attrition/disease rules should convince any sane player to make a major effort at sea. When to make that big effort, and how long to sustain it, is each player’s choice. (Designer’s Notes)

If naval units are the most important units in the game, why is the naval-air game secondary to the ground? That’s because this game gets the relationship right; the naval and air forces are there to enable the ground units. By focusing on the ground units, the players experience the vital need to control the seas and air around the island to deliver supply and troops. Even a superficial reading of books like Neptune’s Inferno: The US Navy at Guadalcanal by James D. Hornfischer which focuses on the sea battles or The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign by John B. Lundstrum that focuses on the air campaign reveal that those battles were fought in support of the boots on the ground.

Bottom Line

I first rated the game on BoardGameGeek 12 years ago. At the time, I rated it a 6.5 (6 = Ok – will play if in the mood) and really only remembered it for its Air-Sea-Land interaction. At the time, I was almost exclusively a naval wargamer and focused on that part of the game. Given this was not a “pure” naval game I knocked it’s rating and set it aside.

That was a mistake; a tragedy in many ways.

Operation Shoestring, though focusing on the ground combat with an abstracted naval-air system added on, captures the main themes of the campaign well. It is probably the most complete, and playable, operational-level of war depiction of the Guadalcanal campaign in wargaming. The desperate defensive battle on land, supported by naval forces attempting to deliver supply, with limited air power available to both sides, is represented fully. There is much to learn about the history of the battle from this game, and much insight to be gained as to the proper role of naval and air power in a campaign.

The Battle of Eutaw Springs has two parts to the engagement. The first part is the Meeting Battle where the American army runs into the British foraging party. Historically, the “rooting party” was overrun but a few soldiers escaped and alerted the British camp. The main battle followed. The two wargames I used to refight Eutaw Springs took different approaches to the battle and the relevant events.

In today’s game the British could just not get anything going and the American dice were hot. The turning point was the death of a British Leader (+1 VP) followed by the Rout of three units. The Morale rules in Commands & Colors Tricorne are maybe the most important to consider. In this case, all three units were forced to retreat and then conduct a Morale Check. A Morale Check is a die roll using the number of dice equal to the remaining blocks in the unit. To pass the check the roll has to have at least one Flag rolled. There are a few modifiers but that’s essentially the rule. In today’s battle, two FULL STRENGTH units that were forced to retreat outright FAILED their Morale Check and Routed away! The end result was a run-away victory for the Americans.

Endgame – British routed away….

The second game pulled out was the American Revolution Tri Pack from GMT Games (2017). Although not listed in the subtitle (Guilford, Saratoga, Brandywine) this game actually has a fourth battle included; Eutaw Springs! This battle has two versions that can be played; a Historical Battle that starts after the events of the foraging party (around 10am in the morning) or a Campaign Game that begins at 7am before the foraging party is encountered. Depending on the result of the foraging party battle the British may be alerted or caught unawares. Having already played out the battle, I set up the Campaign Game to see what might happen differently. Alas, the battle of the foraging party resulted in a Retreat which meant the historical result, an alerted British camp, happened again.

After that though, nothing went historically for the British. Once again the American dice were hot with many Disruption results in combat. Disruption results force retreats but more importantly reduce the army Morale Track. The battle saw many British units Disrupted with few actually Eliminated. The Americans were able to continuously push the British back as they were unable to keep a solid line to stop the American advance. By noon (Turn 6) the battle was pretty much a foregone conclusion. Even with the late arrival of British reinforcements was unable to stem the tide. As with the historical situation, once the Americans got into the British camp there was some Looting (though less than historically) but it did slow down any pursuit of the British.

Disruption after Disruption….

As with my Fourth of July Gaming, it is always fun to play a wargame battle on the anniversary of the event. Doing so brings fresh insights into the battle and the events around it. It demonstrates the real teaching power of wargames which match fun with learning.

Featured image “Battle of Eutaw Springs” by Granger courtesy fineartamerica.com